Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

13. Recent perception

State v. Antwan B. Manuel, 2005 WI 75, affirming 2004 WI App 111 For Manuel: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding1 [general principles]: ¶29      … As this court summarized in Weed, for a statement to fit recent perception exception, it must pass the following three criteria: (1) the statement was not made in response… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Matthew J. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, on certification For Knapp: Robert G. LeBell Issue/Holding: ¶184. We find no clear error in the circuit court’s determination that the third-party hearsay evidence in item 21(a) of Knapp’s offer of proof comes within the recent perception exception under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(2),29 to the hearsay rule. Farrell’s inability to… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Patricia A. Weed, 2003 WI 85, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals For Weed: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: ¶16. Weed argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in admitting Michael’s statement regarding unloading the .357 because the statement did not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(2). Weed principally… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03 For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding1: ¶51. The recent perception exception is similar to the hearsay exceptions for present sense impression and excited utterances, but was intended to allow more time between the observation of the event and the statement in cases where… Read More

{ 0 comments }